alex.byrne at btinternet.com
Fri Feb 18 17:25:55 UTC 2005
I'm most definitely against it if the new method doesn't have any intrinsic
merit. Why ring something that is a considerably worse variation of
something already rung just to give it a new name?
Bloomin' 'eck Phil - you're being just a tad subjective here. You'll be
saying next that peals don't count unless they have over 5% musical rows
(defined by you obviously)!! Did you used to write the X-file or something?
There are lots of reasons for ringing a new method, musical (in your eyes)
or not. 4-bell runs are nice but very 'yesterday'! Tell us what you think is
coming next in ringing music. I'll start off:
--> wrap music. Yes, I know Mark started on this some time ago, but I don't
think it's ever caught on. This is surprising, because it's an amazing
Can someone explain to me why the vast majority of Surprise Major ringers
and composers think that rows like XXXX4578 are musical?
Try them on your piano - it sounds nice! 3578s do too (IMHO). Perhaps, on
just this one occasion, the vast majority is right!
Clarrie: I reckon you are missing the point of music.
Quite so! We're not talking about a bunch of disconnected rows being
musical, but the sequence of the changes. There are some particular rows
that are nice, of course, but we're listening to the whole thing aren't we?
For example, I like wrong hunting below the treble because it tends to
encourage a slightly quicker handstroke lead that keeps the 'flow' going (as
Clarrie describes) - and this is almost entirely independent of the rows it
generates. Maybe we should be looking for place-notation sections that a)
allow flow, b) generate musical rows easily and c) don't cause lots of
awkward falseness (in order of decreasing priority). Then we might have a
set of musical methods.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory